User:Nhp5023/Class Blog

Main | About Me | Class Blog

Weekly blog posts on topics stemming from 3D printing.

Blog 1

A) Something Amazing/Beautiful

The Relms Cathedral Kltset is a beautiful 3D printed piece of art. According to the description, this kitset consists of 62 printed pieces and all parts are drawn from scratch referencing other sources. I personally think it is simply amazing to see the details produced by the printer. This is a work of art that I would love to show it to the world.

B) Something Funny or Strange

Well I thought I have seen it all, unfortunately I have not. I had a good laugh when I first saw the Stegoasuarus Dinosaur Costume Spikes – LED Halloween. Having this for Halloween at State College would be amazing! I would love to be a dinosaur for Halloween! The spikes that were printed looked really detailed and each has a unique look to it.

C) Something Useless

Although the idea of the Wall Switch Plate is meant to be funny with converting to darkness will save you money by switching off the lights, I just don’t see any useful ideas behind it. It’s a comedic printed piece, and means nothing more. If you are not a Star Wars fan, I think you’ll just think that this is just weird or just won’t pay attention to it.

D) Something Useful

I love Sriracha hot sauce and this little object (Dual Chili Extruder) has just made me love the sauce even more. Double the nozzle means double the amount of sauce output! Plus, you can use it to put sauce on two hot dogs!

E) Something Surprising

I did not know that you can make a tie out of 3D printed parts. This is a really cool and innovative design of a hex shaped tie. There are lots of parts that have to be put together, but in the end, you get a flexible plastic tie!

Blog 2: Open Source Ecology (OSE) Project

A) General Impressions of the Open Source Ecology (OSE) Project

The video demonstrated the greater possibility of modular technology. The fact that a tractor can be built within a couple of hours seemed to be too good to be true. Nevertheless, it is true and the project itself is showing noticeable growth regarding the expansion of the ideas and community. The greatest impact regarding the project would be leaning toward third-world and developing countries. Such development would provide the developing areas with opportunities to grow economically and so the people would benefit in the process. However, with such freedom regarding the constructions and the affordable prices, agricultural companies (i.e. John Deere) would most likely be in opposition to the project as it has a great chance of affecting the market of their agricultural products.

Further research has shown great progression in developing the toolkit for agricultural machines. In fact, OSE has a development wiki that contains the first civilization starter kit, which contains open source manuals for some of the prototypes that the groups have designed. For instance, there is an 89 pages guide on how to make the 2011 version CEB Press [1]. If I have genuine interests and resources, I will certainly make an attempt at building one of these machines.

I personally would love to see this come to fruition. As the saying goes, there are many possible solutions for a particular problem.

B) New Yorker Magazine and Marcin Response

The author of the article “The Civilization Kit” [2], Emily Eakin, wrote a critical piece on Marcin Jakubwski’s ideology on self-sufficient industrial/agricultural machines. Moreover, she rather focused on ridiculing his daily lifestyle than that of his ideology and accomplishments. His early routine of doing yoga and meditation for two hours should not be main concerns, but apparently it does matter according to Emily Eakin. She does mention an interesting point regarding the supporters of the project though. She stated that “the people who show up at his farm typically display more enthusiasm for [Marcin’s] ideas than expertise with a lathe or a band saw.” I agree with it to a certain extent as enthusiasm can only go so far. Skillful supporters are what Marcin needs to bring the project further.

Marcin’s response [3] to the article is considerably professional. He cleared up confusions about certain topics regarding the project such as funding, development and goals. He also used this opportunity to defense his points. I am a little confused on his definition of an average person to rise to the occasion in his “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” section. What does he considered as average? An average person with interests, but no skills cannot just go out and build his or herself a tractor. Perhaps he meant an average person with similar academic and machining skills as him. However, an average outside observer will not consider such case. This project is not an individual, but a team effort.

C) PSU OSE Club Possibilities

Although administration or trustees would not support such a thing, I believe there are professors within the Penn State community that are interests and willing to give the idea a try. Since this involves agricultural development, the first group of people I would go to would exist within the agricultural engineering department. I believe that there will be professors within the agricultural fields that would be interests in learning more about the modular technology that the project possesses. Thus, further research would be conducted within the interests of the professors. Furthermore, even manufacturing engineering could relate to what the project is aiming for. Nevertheless, funding could be a big problem. Only through the generation of interests by the majority of the community (i.e. students, faculty, etc.) would spark the possibility of starting something such as the OSE at Penn State.

Blog 3: 3-D Printed RoboHand

A) Who created this design and when/where was it done?

The article talks about a teenager from Kansas, named Mason Wilde, who 3-D printed a robot hand for his family friend’s young son named Matthew. The young kid was born with a condition called “limb difference”, which causes him to have no fingers on his right arm. Mason decided to take on the project after suffering from a concussion from playing football. The mechanical arm costs him roughly 60$ worth of materials and 8 hours of printing time. The idea of the robotic hand was started by Van As when he lost a finger in an accident. He then got in contact with a theatrical artist named Owen who specializes in making puppet mechanical limbs. The first metal prototype was made in November 2012. It was made for a son of a South Africa woman. Then in January 2013, they created the first 3-D printer version and the instructions were put up online for free.

B) If you wanted to make one, where would you go to get it?

I would go to the Thingiverse website [4] to get more information on how to make one. The page contains different designs and also CAD (.stl) files for one to download and 3-D print. Of course, I would need access to a 3-D printer.

C) How many news articles can you find which reference this technology?

USA Today [5] The Wall Street Journal [6] PC Magazine [7] NBC News [8] MakerBot [9]

Blog 4: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #2)

Response to Teammates' Blogs

My teammate Jarred brought up a good point regarding the fact that such modular technology will make the lives of third world citizens easier. I also agree with his astounding reaction to the potential of the project in the future. Nevertheless, Anthony made a reasonable argument as he pointed out that the "civilization starter kit" is a bit misleading in terms of building the machines within a short amount of time. The people that are involved within the project might not have considered all the possible time they have spent on making the machines. Another great point that Anthony made involves the inefficiency of starting from scratch. Such idea is good for developing countries, but it will certainly be really inefficient within developed countries like Japan and the United States. Eva also agrees that the project is wonderful. She mentioned that with more advertisements, the project could become a lot more bigger. I somewhat agree with this statement. My teammate Wenxin also thinks that the project has great potential.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

Drew made a fair point in questioning the effectiveness of the project when it comes to the "one day goal" objective. The team seek to build a functional machine within a day. This is feasible for the people with designing and machining skills, but to those "average" people that are partaking in the project without machining and designing background, it is not reasonable to think that they will be able to accomplish such one day goal.

Kevin made an interesting point regarding starting a similar project at Penn State. He mentioned that it could peak some interests, but at the end of the day, the project is not practical as there is not a great need for it within the region.

My classmate Dongao is skeptical about the project, which I find interesting. He made a decent point regarding the safety issue of the machine production. It could be dangerous for the team if something were to go wrong during the production process. We are dealing with big machines, and not just a small 3-D printer. It is a different ball game regarding the risks of dealing with it.

It is refreshing to hear from a first hand experience about small scale farmers. Nate's family actually runs a small farm here in PA and he mentioned that it is considerably expensive to buy new equipment. His uncle, who is a farmer, actually bought old equipment (from the 1950's) which in need of frequent maintenance and fixes. So he feels that this project has great potential for small scale farmers.

Sam actually made a great point regarding the unnecessary critique from Emily Eakin's article. He made a great point in saying that Emily could not connect with the team leader and that is why she did not show much enthusiastic toward the project. It was also surprising to find out that she is married to a professor at a prestigious college. Her life is different than that of Marcin's, and her article was perhaps somewhat bias due to this circumstance.

Blog 5: RepRap Media Timeline

1.) An event very important in the progression of 3D printing technology (open source or not)

Although the article [10] was very short and didn’t provide much details. It is an important event in the progression of 3D printing technology as a company called Organovo actually managed to 3D printed a liver which can live for 40 days. The company managed to increase the liver survival time from 5 to 40 days just after 4 months of tinkering around with the technology. It is yet to be perfect as they need to implement a way to incorporate blood vessels. Nevertheless, if one were to think about the potential of such implementation in the future, there will be endless possibilities regarding 3D printed organs! Imagine not having to wait for organs from other people, but 3D printed organs that has no chance of rejecting by your body.

2.) A not so important event in the progression of this technology (something overhyped perhaps?)

There was an article that was released on June 15th, 2012 [11] discussing about the revolutionized 3D-printing for guitar-making. From what it stated from the article, 3D printing is used to create guitar bodies. The professor named Olaf Diegel from New Zealand, used EOS 3D printer for printing parts. Personally, I did not think this is revolutionizing the 3D printing technology. The article seemed to have overhyped it. The only thing that Diegel could do with the guitar-making process is to make the body of the guitar. The other guitar parts, such as the headstock, neck, strings, frets, pickups, etc. are all traditionally made. Thus I would consider this to be a not so important event in the progression of 3D printing technology.

3.) Something which you found interesting which you would like to think or speak more about. This might overlap with #1 a bit, depending.

Something which I found interesting and would like to further discuss about occurs on July 26th, 2012 [12]. On this day, the first 3D-printed gun was announced. The printed gun was a .22-caliber pistol that had fired 200 rounds without signs of cracking and breaking. The main body of the gun is 3D printed using normal plastic resin, but the chamber is actually made out of metal. The 3D printer was used to create the lower receiver of the gun, in which is the part that is considered to be “legally-controlled”. Such news must have seemed a bit of a shock for some people out there considering the fact that people now have the potential just print out guns without licenses. If one were to consider the date that the article got released and how far 3D-printing has evolved since then, it is scary to think how much more advance with such idea of personalize gun printing could be.

Blog 6: Future Projects

Alexandre presented a lot of interesting projects and made me more aware of the possibilities regarding 3D printing. Projects similar to those like OSE kick-starter, and the prosthetic hand advancement enable me to realize the fast evolution of 3D printing technology. Such development has touched a lot of different branches within manufacturing processes. It has got to the point where 3D printing food is now possible. Although it is still fresh, new, and further research is currently conducted around the world to advance the process, I believe this is where the class could possible pursue in terms of focusing on new projects. With the class getting better at fixing and maintaining the current printers, I believe that pursuing 3D printing research is perhaps a good idea. My teammate Anthony is also interested in this topic and we are planning on working together to learn more about 3D printing food and keep the RepRap page updated with newest findings and progress. We could even pursue to make our own 3D food printer. I doubt getting enough people to be interested in this project would be hard to do since at the end of the day, we will get to taste what’s being printed. I love food, so perhaps it could just be a personal thing.

Another idea could be focusing on like an outreach program for other schools around the world. Developing countries like Africa and Vietnam could perhaps be interested in 3D printing technology.

There are questions to be raised in regards to making a composite printer. I’m not knowledgeable with this type of 3D printing, but what will be price to make such a printer? Would composite material costs more to print? If the class just focus on building just one or a few initially, it should be possible and more can be developed from then. In the case of dual extruders, I have yet it see it in action but I believe it will be a better transition to go with in terms of pursuing new projects for the class since we won't have to start from scratch.

Blog 7: Affordable 3D Printing Research Equipment

Read this article [13]. What do you think about this idea? Can you think of any examples of cheap research equipment we have made?

The article provided information on the advancement of 3D printing technology and how it is slowly benefiting the researching fields. 3D printing technology are slowly being used as an alternative to make researching equipment more affordable. Such idea is considerably reasonable when one thinks about the benefits that it has on developing countries. It will allow “talented scientists”, as stated in the article, around the world to produce necessary research tools. The fact that a colourimeter research tool that normally costs $2,000 can be produced by 3D printing with the comparable cost of just $50 is shockingly true. The open-source feature is one of the main reasons behind the affordable price tag.

On Maker Bot Thingiverse [14], Pearce has several collection of open-source scientific tools available for the public. Some of these designs include wind gauges, electrical compressor, pyranometer, microscope adapter, and etc. I don’t recall any examples of cheap research equipment we have made, but there are two students that are working with Professor Schilder to help him design and built a part for his research.

Read this article [15]. What do you think of this? Does it seem printable to you? Why or why not? Relate it back to the first article. Discuss the importance (or lack thereof) of open source in this.

Aside from the misleading title considering that it does not teach me how to build a low-cost AFM nanoscope, I thought it has great potential. According to the article, “research-grade AFMs typically cost $100,000 or more, and use custom hardware.” The new design that the team is working on, however, has the potential to cost only about $500. The problem I do see with this nanoscope design alternative is that the calibration might be really difficult considering the fact that the machine is dealing with things in nano-unit scale.

Such news is related to the content of the above article in the sense that it will help expanding the research capabilities in developing countries. Major discoveries could be made anywhere around the world. By providing the necessary and affordable tools for scientists with different thinking and backgrounds, it will certainly speed up the potential for major discoveries to be made.

If such 3D printing design is to be made open source, it will make a big impact in the researching fields of AFMs. It will most definitely sway researchers to go with the more affordable choice of building their own AFM nanoscopes. This is considerably a major step towards making academic research more available for developing countries.

Blog 8: Intellectual Property Reflection

The definition regarding copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets are as follow:

Copyright - The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work) [16]

Trademark - A word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. [17]

Patent - a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, esp. the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. [18]

Trade secrets - a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. [19]

Copyright deals with the legal rights in form of expression while patents are solely focused on invention. In addition, both copyrights and patents are regulated by the government. Trademark is also regulated by the government and its purpose is to protect authorship similar to that of copyright, but copyright does not protect things such as a phrase, slogan, or trade name. Trade secrets, however, are not government regulated and is carefully watched by the company for illegal leaks of trade advantages.

What are the five I's and what do you conclude from them?

The five I’s are infringement, identification, impractical or impossible, and irrelevant. These are the five major implications of 3D-printing when printing things without control and with any functionality. 3D-printing has great risks of infringement since an owner of a 3D printer can virtually print anything without the considerations of copyrights or patents. Identification is the second risk due to the open source model of 3D-printing as it could result in difficulty identifying particular designs. This will lead it to being impractical/impossible to regulate it. Then at the end, intellectual property (IP) will become irrelevant.

From the perspective described in the article (or your own if you disagree), what are the futures of copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets?

The article is generally stating that 3D printing advancement will make IP obsolete in the future. Personally, I do agree with the interpretation of the article to a certain extent. IP protection will not become obsolete, but it will certainly be a lot more difficult as open source communities are becoming more well-known and growing. As long as they focus on narrowing it down and focus more on regulating the protection of intellectual properties for businesses and industries, then it should be more manageable. If they focus too much on the public printing for recreational or academic purposes, then it is too broadly inefficient to follow through.

How does Creative Commons fit into your perspective?

Personally, I do think Creative Commons have the potential to help with legal sharing of copyright materials in the future. It is a more efficient way of protecting IP. With the continuing growth of open source communities, Creative Commons should be the way to go or at least be more focused on. Nevertheless, this is only efficient if it works alongside with other copyright licenses as there is no such thing as a perfect solution to a problem.

Blog 9: 3D Printing Filament Suppliers

Suppliers:

There are plenty of options when it comes to buying filament materials as one could check out the Printing Material Suppliers page on the RepRap wiki page. With such variety, the hard decision is based on which supplier the buyer should go with. Personally, as an experienced online shopper, I tend to look for sites that have reviews from previous buyers, professionalism, and security. So from looking at the list from the wiki page, RepRapSupply USA seems to be a trustworthy site [20]. It costs $33.00 per kilogram of material, which matches and even is cheaper than most of other suppliers around the USA. Another supplier that has positive reviews is 3D Ink. My classmate Jarred actually told me about this site as he has been a loyal customer of this particular supplier. It only costs $29.95 per kilogram of material. It’s cheaper than the supplier I mentioned above. The best reviews and recommendations come from the people that are close to you, and in this case, Jarred is a part of that particular group of people. I would trust him more than the reviews I see online.

Materials:

The materials I think we should use for support is PVA. One of the reasons why is due to the optional heated bed feature. With the printers we have right now in class, most of them do not have the heated beds. It is also used to print support structures in complex objects and can easily be removed with warm water. Additional features of PVA is the fact that it is biodegradable and non-toxic. Nevertheless, the max extruder temperature can only be 210C. That could be a negative feature towards such material. Matter Hackers has PVA filament for sale at a price of $45 per 0.5kg. So $90 for a kilogram. Maker Geeks also has it on sale for $45.95 per 0.5kg.

Who Do You Choose?

If I were to shop for material for my own needs, I would go with sites that seem trustworthy. I particularly look for positive reviews, professionalism, and security. The Printing Material Suppliers Wiki page would be the first step. I would also check out Amazon as I am a loyal customer of theirs. If I would have to choose one though, I would go with 3D Ink recommended by my friend Jarred as he had experienced with their process and products.